http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
I read this last night and smiled. Reading it today makes me smile even more.
Follow me as I daydream. Is it possible the Republicans have done themselves more damage with this fiasco than it seems? While I'm no big fan of the final health care industry giveaway, it does do some good things and it is a foundation for further legislation. But as Frum said, this was all the marbles for the Republicans. They staked everything on this: reputation, power, authority. They were so arrogantly convinced that they could block any kind of health reform that they figured dealing was beneath them. The Republicans had lost their grip on power and it unsettled them to where they grasped for it at all costs. So, to be really vulgar about it: did they shoot their wad? Was this everything?
It's hard to imagine whipping up their supporters into this kind of tea-party frenzy again. With all the months, the energy, the focus, the rage, the organization, the indignation, and with the long, hard fight this was--leaving them with *nothing*--I find it hard to imagine that even the True Believers, the right wing rage zombies who made this such a torturous battle, summoning up the will for another year-long battle over something as dry as cap-and-trade legislation. It was easy to put health care into fighting terms: death panels, killing grandma, take away your Medicare, and so on. This issue was made for sound bites, and the sound bites failed. More arcane policy battles are not going to lend themselves to chants in the park.
This may have been *their* Waterloo. Worse than failing, they've embarrassed themselves. At the very end, they have almost nothing of consequence to show for all their sound and fury. They think this will turn into electoral rage. It might; I won't discount that. One thing we know is that they'll be flogging this horse all the way to November. But other than the core that would have voted their way anyway, and would have showed up to vote out any Democrats who dared challenge the right-wing lock on power, they're not going to get a lot of voters. Certainly they've lost a lot of the independent voters due to their viciousness and uncompromising fury. (That may have gained them a few votes, but I doubt it's balanced out.) My guess is that a number, probably small, of right-wing voters will stay home, resigned to second-tier status in the next Congress. Quite possibly a number of right-leaning independents will too, mollified by the benefits of the health care bill and by what is almost certain to be some improvement in the economy. (As Frum said.) But what they have lost is their cachet of power, their tough-guy take-no-prisoners M.O. that served them well in the Bush years. They went to the well for it and lost. They're not invulnerable anymore.
I just don't think they can manage the pitch of rage they've had during the health-care debate. Without that lightning rod, what will they do? Work themselves up into town hall meetings over immigration reform? Cautiously, hopefully, I'll venture that they're spent. I think they've been defeated and won't recover from it easily. But then, if there's one thing the right wing in this country has shown, they have an almost infinite supply of offense and righteous indignation. The left can celebrate over the biggest legislative victory in 45 years, but cautiously. You can't take your eyes off these guys.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Greed for something they'll never have
An excellent article in the Huffington Post the other day said a few things about the way conservatives think. It was a brilliant article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/a-good-week-for-science_b_470500.html) in that it laid out how conservatism and liberalism are much more biological in nature. Specifically, conservatism is rooted in fear and reacts most strongly to external threats. (I oversimplify.)
What does that mean for the Tea Party movement? I know they're reacting like spastic lemmings to the code words of "socialism" and so on, rending their figurative garments and figuratively gnashing their teeth over their perceived loss of freedom and the death of America. It's plain to see that there's a gripping fear underneath it, irrational though it is; modern conservatism needs an enemy, seems to thrive on having an enemy, really, and cannot justify its existence without one. They lost their dearest enemy when the Soviet Union fell, and searched for something to replace it. Well, they didn't so much replace it as transpose it to the Democrats. Their enemy is still there, it's still the Communists, only they've decided to rebrand the Democratic Party as Communists so that their worldview is still intact.
In order to make Democrats Communists, though, an elaborate and false scaffold has to be built on which to hang this. None of the Tea Party people (they're now offended by the name, "tea baggers," that they gave themselves at the outset) seem to be able to vocalize exactly what dire consequences await if the Democrats get their way, referring in generalities to "government control" and so on. They don't have an architecture for this accomplishment, in the same way the gun fanatics live in constant fear that the Gummint will try to take away their guns...not comprehending the logistical impossibility of such a task. They don't seem to be able to make the leap from, say, health care for all to Soviet-style (or, from some, Nazi-style) control without a structure of false beliefs and logical inconsistencies that beggar description. I feel sorry for them, in a way: how terrible it must be to live in constant terror, and to need to live in constant terror to constantly validate their beliefs.
That's the success of hate radio, by the way: its audience is in constant need of validation. This is why liberal talk radio doesn't succeed as well. Liberals and progressives don't need to be coached, 24/7, that something is out to take away everything they have, or ever will have. Liberals can go through their day without having their beliefs hysterically supported.
This leads me to an interesting feature about the Tea Party movement, and really most of conservatism, that defies logic. Many people have remarked in many places that a defining characteristic of Americans is that we like to believe that untold wealth and prestige live around the corner for any of us: be it the lottery, a timely invention, a fortuitous lawsuit, or an unforeseen inheritance, any one of us in America can suddenly find ourselves lifted from our mundane lives and launched into worry-free comfort. That's the American dream: not the Horatio Alger lifting-by-our-bootstraps rugged-individualism dream that with the right combination of pluck, determination, and work, we can succeed, but that at any time a bolt out of the blue will rescue us and make life a big, fluffy pillow.
So when you tell the teabaggers that, for instance, health care for all will not come out of their pockets--that they're going to get something very good on the backs of the very wealthy, to really simplify things--why do they react with fury that the American way of life, THEIR way of life, is threatened? I've become convinced that most of these people, who can't put together a plan that gets them from average life to stellar life, feel that the wealth they might have is threatened. Obama-style reforms don't threaten their way of life at all: they threaten the hazy dream of one day having everything they want at no effort at all.
So they don't want you to have something that they don't have, either. They want to keep to themselves all the wealth they don't, and won't ever, receive. There is in America a very real terror that people in the same economic strata might possibly get something without having earned it, even though they hope for the same thing themselves. They're afraid of being taxed to support the losers...once they become rich enough that the tax applies to them.
Like my earlier summary, this is a very strong oversimplification. Of course there's much more to the Tea Partiers than just the dread that someone, somewhere, might get a benefit they don't have. There's subtle racism behind a lot of it, a lot of media manipulation, a great amount of untruth, no small amount of gullibility, and a very great amount of uncertainty that comes from a roller-coaster economy. Factor into this the knowledge that our economy is supported on China's good graces, that we don't produce much of anything in this country anymore, that within one generation we've gone from the standard that even a high-school dropout could get a factory job and support a family to the frightening reality of most of those jobs being relocated to southeast Asia, and there's an understandable subcurrent of fear in every American's life. But to get Americans to reject their own best interests in favor of the wealthy took an amazing amount of trickery, orchestrated by the wealthy and their industries. And the Tea Party movement swallowed it like cherry-flavored arsenic.
It took a lot of doing to get Americans to think that something that will bring them a better life in reality is evil because it threatens the security of luxury they daydream of. But they did it.
What does that mean for the Tea Party movement? I know they're reacting like spastic lemmings to the code words of "socialism" and so on, rending their figurative garments and figuratively gnashing their teeth over their perceived loss of freedom and the death of America. It's plain to see that there's a gripping fear underneath it, irrational though it is; modern conservatism needs an enemy, seems to thrive on having an enemy, really, and cannot justify its existence without one. They lost their dearest enemy when the Soviet Union fell, and searched for something to replace it. Well, they didn't so much replace it as transpose it to the Democrats. Their enemy is still there, it's still the Communists, only they've decided to rebrand the Democratic Party as Communists so that their worldview is still intact.
In order to make Democrats Communists, though, an elaborate and false scaffold has to be built on which to hang this. None of the Tea Party people (they're now offended by the name, "tea baggers," that they gave themselves at the outset) seem to be able to vocalize exactly what dire consequences await if the Democrats get their way, referring in generalities to "government control" and so on. They don't have an architecture for this accomplishment, in the same way the gun fanatics live in constant fear that the Gummint will try to take away their guns...not comprehending the logistical impossibility of such a task. They don't seem to be able to make the leap from, say, health care for all to Soviet-style (or, from some, Nazi-style) control without a structure of false beliefs and logical inconsistencies that beggar description. I feel sorry for them, in a way: how terrible it must be to live in constant terror, and to need to live in constant terror to constantly validate their beliefs.
That's the success of hate radio, by the way: its audience is in constant need of validation. This is why liberal talk radio doesn't succeed as well. Liberals and progressives don't need to be coached, 24/7, that something is out to take away everything they have, or ever will have. Liberals can go through their day without having their beliefs hysterically supported.
This leads me to an interesting feature about the Tea Party movement, and really most of conservatism, that defies logic. Many people have remarked in many places that a defining characteristic of Americans is that we like to believe that untold wealth and prestige live around the corner for any of us: be it the lottery, a timely invention, a fortuitous lawsuit, or an unforeseen inheritance, any one of us in America can suddenly find ourselves lifted from our mundane lives and launched into worry-free comfort. That's the American dream: not the Horatio Alger lifting-by-our-bootstraps rugged-individualism dream that with the right combination of pluck, determination, and work, we can succeed, but that at any time a bolt out of the blue will rescue us and make life a big, fluffy pillow.
So when you tell the teabaggers that, for instance, health care for all will not come out of their pockets--that they're going to get something very good on the backs of the very wealthy, to really simplify things--why do they react with fury that the American way of life, THEIR way of life, is threatened? I've become convinced that most of these people, who can't put together a plan that gets them from average life to stellar life, feel that the wealth they might have is threatened. Obama-style reforms don't threaten their way of life at all: they threaten the hazy dream of one day having everything they want at no effort at all.
So they don't want you to have something that they don't have, either. They want to keep to themselves all the wealth they don't, and won't ever, receive. There is in America a very real terror that people in the same economic strata might possibly get something without having earned it, even though they hope for the same thing themselves. They're afraid of being taxed to support the losers...once they become rich enough that the tax applies to them.
Like my earlier summary, this is a very strong oversimplification. Of course there's much more to the Tea Partiers than just the dread that someone, somewhere, might get a benefit they don't have. There's subtle racism behind a lot of it, a lot of media manipulation, a great amount of untruth, no small amount of gullibility, and a very great amount of uncertainty that comes from a roller-coaster economy. Factor into this the knowledge that our economy is supported on China's good graces, that we don't produce much of anything in this country anymore, that within one generation we've gone from the standard that even a high-school dropout could get a factory job and support a family to the frightening reality of most of those jobs being relocated to southeast Asia, and there's an understandable subcurrent of fear in every American's life. But to get Americans to reject their own best interests in favor of the wealthy took an amazing amount of trickery, orchestrated by the wealthy and their industries. And the Tea Party movement swallowed it like cherry-flavored arsenic.
It took a lot of doing to get Americans to think that something that will bring them a better life in reality is evil because it threatens the security of luxury they daydream of. But they did it.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Step 1: admitting you have a problem
I'm forgetting where I read the comment over the last couple days of reading editorials and forwarded articles, but one of them contained the European observation that Americans are very self-satisfied. It may have been in the article about Chinese researchers returning to China out of patriotism, challenge, and the desire to make more of a difference than they can here in America. Not sure. But tonight my nephew and I were talking about the many things that America has become mediocre in--education, health care among them--that once we led, and I mentioned this observation. We joked about Americans having come to the idea that we're #1 in everything and deciding that it was time for us to relax.
That's not much of a joke, I'm afraid. Obviously Americans think we're #1 in everything. Like every other empire that became #1, we became complacent while making ourselves a target for derision and takeover. The uniquely American aspect to this is the angry denial and rationalization we've descended to. We've forgotten how to lead, I think, but we haven't forgotten the sense of entitlement in leading, so that instead of meeting challenges and renewing ourselves, we've simply become more angry and confrontational about our bruised egos. It's apparent in so many things from index finger-waving jingoism to wanting to kick butt worldwide. We're a people who know that our country is in decline but are so afraid to confront that truth that, instead of meeting the challenges of an emerging China and a potential India, we angrily denounce anyone who reveals our flaws as traitors and threaten (or attempt) to beat up anyone who challenges not our actual position in the world but our perceived position in the world. And for an angry, militaristic people, that means force, from the personal to the global.
Luckily we've gotten past the Bush Doctrine, but Obama doesn't seem to be much better. Rather than accept the obvious futility of our situation in Afghanistan, he's decided to meet it with more force. America has become the possessive boyfriend of the world: we don't know how insecure in ourselves we really are, but our only response to that is to threaten anyone who's perceived as taking away the object of our affection. At the heart of every bully is a deep insecurity, and we are a very insecure country. The anger and confrontation of the right wing, bordering on hysteria, in this country reveals much more about that insecurity than we want to admit.
All of this comes from the bloated self-satisfaction I mentioned earlier. If we'd never rested on our laurels, we might have met the challenges of the late 20th century, but we came to the belief that because we want to do it (whatever "it" is), it is therefore the right thing to do, and any suggestion contrary to that is treason. I know, this is really all boilerplate psycho-political musing, but what struck me on this was that at the base of most of the ills America suffers, and makes others suffer through, is that satisfaction with ourselves. Unless we, as a country, are able to admit that we are failing and that the future of representational democracy lies in confronting the failure rather than the critics, we're doomed to becoming a historical afterthought while repressive, China- (and Russia-) style oligarchy represents the wave of the future.
That's not much of a joke, I'm afraid. Obviously Americans think we're #1 in everything. Like every other empire that became #1, we became complacent while making ourselves a target for derision and takeover. The uniquely American aspect to this is the angry denial and rationalization we've descended to. We've forgotten how to lead, I think, but we haven't forgotten the sense of entitlement in leading, so that instead of meeting challenges and renewing ourselves, we've simply become more angry and confrontational about our bruised egos. It's apparent in so many things from index finger-waving jingoism to wanting to kick butt worldwide. We're a people who know that our country is in decline but are so afraid to confront that truth that, instead of meeting the challenges of an emerging China and a potential India, we angrily denounce anyone who reveals our flaws as traitors and threaten (or attempt) to beat up anyone who challenges not our actual position in the world but our perceived position in the world. And for an angry, militaristic people, that means force, from the personal to the global.
Luckily we've gotten past the Bush Doctrine, but Obama doesn't seem to be much better. Rather than accept the obvious futility of our situation in Afghanistan, he's decided to meet it with more force. America has become the possessive boyfriend of the world: we don't know how insecure in ourselves we really are, but our only response to that is to threaten anyone who's perceived as taking away the object of our affection. At the heart of every bully is a deep insecurity, and we are a very insecure country. The anger and confrontation of the right wing, bordering on hysteria, in this country reveals much more about that insecurity than we want to admit.
All of this comes from the bloated self-satisfaction I mentioned earlier. If we'd never rested on our laurels, we might have met the challenges of the late 20th century, but we came to the belief that because we want to do it (whatever "it" is), it is therefore the right thing to do, and any suggestion contrary to that is treason. I know, this is really all boilerplate psycho-political musing, but what struck me on this was that at the base of most of the ills America suffers, and makes others suffer through, is that satisfaction with ourselves. Unless we, as a country, are able to admit that we are failing and that the future of representational democracy lies in confronting the failure rather than the critics, we're doomed to becoming a historical afterthought while repressive, China- (and Russia-) style oligarchy represents the wave of the future.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Overwhelmed in the garden and rethinking for next year
Whew. I haven't posted about gardening in a long time, and for good reason...I just plain got swamped. This was pretty much the year that everything involving gardens crashed for me! My seedlings all failed for various reasons. I found that I have physically deteriorated significantly since just last year and can't keep up with a garden the size of the one I planted. My niece and her fiance promised to help all summer, but they haven't been able to. I started classes again recently for a change in life direction. On top of all that, I was subscribed to every gardening group known to Yahoo, and my mailbox was overstuffed every day! It just plain got to me, and as I am likely to do when faced with too much, I wasn't able to do much of anything. (Except the classes. I got A's.)
So here's the story. Once this year's garden is done, I am radically rethinking it. For one, far fewer tomatoes and more peppers. The reason for this is that peppers need far less care than tomatoes and have fewer pests, also taking up less space, and are easier to weed. Another thing I am thinking is going to container gardening, even homemade upside-down planting. I'm also wanting to experiment with growing tobacco, so that eliminates the problems of cucumber, melon, and squash vines.
I'm also rethinking a lot of my organic ideas. I hate to admit it, but I don't have the physical capability anymore to garden totally organically. Essentially, the weeds and the perennials are taking over, and I can't keep them back. Not when just a few minutes' of bending over and standing up makes me so light-headed I'm nauseous, and not when standing up for any length of time makes my knees scream in pain. So when I take down the garden this year, I am going to apply some weed killer to prevent them from coming up in the spring, and when spring comes, I am going to apply some pre-emergent herbicide.
Seed starting is a pain as well because of lack of space, the energy it uses, the fact that I have to do it upstairs, and so on. So the only thing I am planning on starting is the tobacco, and I'll be buying starts through sites like www.thechilewoman.com. I'm going to cut back my tomato varieties from approximately 9,000 to one or two--probably Rutgers, which is the one tomato this year that excelled even in the weeds.
Next year: more and better mulching. I just can't keep down the weeds without heavy fabric and mulch.
And...I severely cut back on my Yahoo groups! I cut many of them to digests and special notices only or even no mail, and a few I dropped entirely. The important thing is to not FEEL overwhelmed. I almost totally lost my love of gardening because there was so much to do, and I don't want that. So next year...much less. Much less. And more happiness.
So here's the story. Once this year's garden is done, I am radically rethinking it. For one, far fewer tomatoes and more peppers. The reason for this is that peppers need far less care than tomatoes and have fewer pests, also taking up less space, and are easier to weed. Another thing I am thinking is going to container gardening, even homemade upside-down planting. I'm also wanting to experiment with growing tobacco, so that eliminates the problems of cucumber, melon, and squash vines.
I'm also rethinking a lot of my organic ideas. I hate to admit it, but I don't have the physical capability anymore to garden totally organically. Essentially, the weeds and the perennials are taking over, and I can't keep them back. Not when just a few minutes' of bending over and standing up makes me so light-headed I'm nauseous, and not when standing up for any length of time makes my knees scream in pain. So when I take down the garden this year, I am going to apply some weed killer to prevent them from coming up in the spring, and when spring comes, I am going to apply some pre-emergent herbicide.
Seed starting is a pain as well because of lack of space, the energy it uses, the fact that I have to do it upstairs, and so on. So the only thing I am planning on starting is the tobacco, and I'll be buying starts through sites like www.thechilewoman.com. I'm going to cut back my tomato varieties from approximately 9,000 to one or two--probably Rutgers, which is the one tomato this year that excelled even in the weeds.
Next year: more and better mulching. I just can't keep down the weeds without heavy fabric and mulch.
And...I severely cut back on my Yahoo groups! I cut many of them to digests and special notices only or even no mail, and a few I dropped entirely. The important thing is to not FEEL overwhelmed. I almost totally lost my love of gardening because there was so much to do, and I don't want that. So next year...much less. Much less. And more happiness.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
There is no "next time"
A thought came to mind that I hadn't seen elsewhere. I don't post many blog entries because anything I have to say has generally been said by a lot of people elsewhere, and I don't feel my words are so deathless that they need to contribute to the junk drawer that is the blogosphere. When I see an aspect of something no one else seems to, though, it's time for a comment.
Now, a lot of people are saying we have to get healthcare done now, because if we don't, it won't get done at all. I agree with that, but I think it's much more than that. We have to succeed--Obama has to succeed--or else it's the end of the road for Democrats entirely.
Look at it this way. Obama was elected with the closest thing Dems have had to a mandate since LBJ was elected in 1964. We have the largest Congressional majority since that time, too. Obama came in with the kind of popularity that we haven't seen since Reagan and a clear mandate for change. Yet we're getting derailed by the combined might of the D.C. lobbies--Big Health is out to get us, and it's been revealed (via leaked internal memo) that Big Oil is planning the same strategy for climate change legislation.
If we can't accomplish major legislation with the assembly we have now, when will we? Is there any possibility that if the big corporations win now, they will be weaker in the future? If the most popular Democrat since Kennedy, since FDR really, can't accomplish the major change we need along with a veto-proof Senate, who is going to come along and do it? We get taunted by the right for having elected "The Messiah" and "The One." Yeah, we put a lot of pressure on Obama to deliver more than any other President has. But if he doesn't do it, if we can't do it, who in the world is going to?
Who will be able to stand up to Big Money if we cannot?
Paraphrasing the Chief of Staff in "The American President," the American people thirst for leadership, and they'll crawl through the desert to get it. And if they don't find it there, they'll drink the sand. Wake up, Democrats: if we can't show that we have the spine and cojones to lead, Americans will turn to people who do. And the only other option is the GOP.
We can't crow that the GOP is dead. We can't relax just because they keep putting up fools and buffoons. If we don't lead and succeed, the American people will choose a buffoon who can. They already did in 2000 and 2004. As it is, we stand to lose seats in 2010 because of our indecision, and we'll be able to accomplish far less--especially since, thinking they see the writing on the wall, Dems will tack even farther to the right, thinking that's what Americans want. That's not what they will be voting for: they'll be voting for anyone who can govern strongly. And if they see the GOP as strong in 2010, and we can't accomplish anything between there and 2012, we're going to see a Republican president...and that one may well be a loon like Sarah Palin.
There is no "maybe next time." This is it for us. We have the strongest leader in a generation, and if we can't get it done now, no one is going to trust us in the future. Be firm with your congressperson and your President. Tell them that the public option is not optional. As our President said, "We are the people we have waited for." If we let our agenda be destroyed by a well-ogranized group of lobbyists now, we might as well throw in the towel. This is it. If we don't win now, they own us.
Write, call, and pester your leaders until they listen. A free America is your responsibility.
Now, a lot of people are saying we have to get healthcare done now, because if we don't, it won't get done at all. I agree with that, but I think it's much more than that. We have to succeed--Obama has to succeed--or else it's the end of the road for Democrats entirely.
Look at it this way. Obama was elected with the closest thing Dems have had to a mandate since LBJ was elected in 1964. We have the largest Congressional majority since that time, too. Obama came in with the kind of popularity that we haven't seen since Reagan and a clear mandate for change. Yet we're getting derailed by the combined might of the D.C. lobbies--Big Health is out to get us, and it's been revealed (via leaked internal memo) that Big Oil is planning the same strategy for climate change legislation.
If we can't accomplish major legislation with the assembly we have now, when will we? Is there any possibility that if the big corporations win now, they will be weaker in the future? If the most popular Democrat since Kennedy, since FDR really, can't accomplish the major change we need along with a veto-proof Senate, who is going to come along and do it? We get taunted by the right for having elected "The Messiah" and "The One." Yeah, we put a lot of pressure on Obama to deliver more than any other President has. But if he doesn't do it, if we can't do it, who in the world is going to?
Who will be able to stand up to Big Money if we cannot?
Paraphrasing the Chief of Staff in "The American President," the American people thirst for leadership, and they'll crawl through the desert to get it. And if they don't find it there, they'll drink the sand. Wake up, Democrats: if we can't show that we have the spine and cojones to lead, Americans will turn to people who do. And the only other option is the GOP.
We can't crow that the GOP is dead. We can't relax just because they keep putting up fools and buffoons. If we don't lead and succeed, the American people will choose a buffoon who can. They already did in 2000 and 2004. As it is, we stand to lose seats in 2010 because of our indecision, and we'll be able to accomplish far less--especially since, thinking they see the writing on the wall, Dems will tack even farther to the right, thinking that's what Americans want. That's not what they will be voting for: they'll be voting for anyone who can govern strongly. And if they see the GOP as strong in 2010, and we can't accomplish anything between there and 2012, we're going to see a Republican president...and that one may well be a loon like Sarah Palin.
There is no "maybe next time." This is it for us. We have the strongest leader in a generation, and if we can't get it done now, no one is going to trust us in the future. Be firm with your congressperson and your President. Tell them that the public option is not optional. As our President said, "We are the people we have waited for." If we let our agenda be destroyed by a well-ogranized group of lobbyists now, we might as well throw in the towel. This is it. If we don't win now, they own us.
Write, call, and pester your leaders until they listen. A free America is your responsibility.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Keeping the Heat on...Obama
Both Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow devoted significant time at the tops of their respective shows for this story, and were highly critical. As Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar at Georgetown U., said, what good are constitutional rights if there is no framework to enforce them?
The comments following this story (at the site) are passionate and sometimes enlightening.
Myself...I only hope that the argument put forth that the DOJ is doing its legally-mandated job is the correct one. By that argument, the DOJ must defend the United States' government against any and all lawsuits brought against it to the utmost of its capabilities, and the DOJ (with or without, most likely without, the oversight of Obama himself) is going over the top in its arguments so that no one involved in this case, at any time, can be accused of not doing due diligence. That's a valid argument, especially if Obama's administration has no intent of putting into effect any policies depending on their legal defense. Evidence against this, though, is that Obama has decided to maintain some long-standing "black sites" at which torture is alleged to have occurred. As Turley said on "Countdown," Obama seems to be all about programs, not principles. I don't know if I agree with that 100%, but there's something to it.
I just know that we have to hold the Obama Administration just as culpable as we would the Bush Administration. Yes, the lawsuit against the United States now has Obama's government as defendants, and they must defend themselves vigorously. And yes, it is entirely possible that they are choosing a ridiculously over-the-top defense not only to ensure due diligence but also to throw the case. But if the current DOJ pursues this as a matter of policy, it is our obligation to protest it in every avenue available to us.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/7/15548/97017?detail=f
(live links at website)
More Immunity Claims on Wiretapping from Obama DOJ by mcjoan
Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 05:02:04 PM PDT
In three separate cases in as many months, the Obama Justice Department has used the same arguments that the Bush administration Justice Department used to attempt to stop judicial review of extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping. In the Mohamed v. Jeppesen extraordinary rendition case, the Obama administration reiterated the Bush administration argument that the case should be dismissed to preserve "states secrets." Likewise, in the Al-Haramain wiretapping case, Obama's DOJ used the arguments of the Bush administration to argue, again, that state secrets should prevent the Al-Haramain case--in which the only secret isn't a secret because it was inadvertently shared with plaintiff's attorneys--from moving forward.
Late Friday, the Obama DOJ actually went the Bush administration one argument further, in a third case. InJewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is "suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records." The Obama administration filed its first response [pdf] to the suit Friday, demanding dismissal of the entire suit.
Just a reminder, as pointed out by Glenn; one of the rationales provided by all of those Senators who supported the FISAAA that granted immunity to the telcos was the the avenue of suing the government was still open. Jello Jay wrote: "If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials."
Let's hope that Senator Rockefeller holds that belief when the government is led by his own party. Here'sGlenn's synopsis of the government argument:
[T]he Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.
In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.
There are several notable aspects to what happened here with this new court filing from Obama:
(1) Unlike in the prior cases where the Obama DOJ embraced the Bush theory of state secrets -- in which the Obama DOJ was simply maintaining already-asserted arguments in those lawsuits by the Bush DOJ -- the motion filed on Friday was the first response of any kind to this lawsuit by the Government. Indeed, EFF filed the lawsuit in October but purposely agreed with Bush lawyers to an extension of the time to respond until April, in the hope that by making this Obama's case, and giving his DOJ officials months to consider what to do when first responding, they would receive a different response than the one they would have gotten from the Bush DOJ.
That didn't happen. This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed -- almost three full months -- makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials. Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used -- not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance. Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of "state secrets" to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself.
(2) It is hard to overstate how extremist is the "sovereign immunity" argument which the Obama DOJ invented here in order to get rid of this lawsuit. I confirmed with both ACLU and EFF lawyers involved in numerous prior surveillance cases with the Bush administration that the Bush DOJ had never previously argued in any context that the Patriot Act bars all causes of action for any illegal surveillance in the absence of "willful disclosure." This is a brand new, extraordinarily broad claim of government immunity made for the first time ever by the Obama DOJ -- all in service of blocking EFF's lawsuit against Bush officials for illegal spying. As EFF's Kevin Bankston put it:
This is the first time [the DOJ] claimed sovereign immunity against Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act claims. In other words, the administration is arguing that the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violates federal surveillance statutes, whether FISA, the Wiretap Act or the SCA.
Since EFF's lawsuit is the first to sue for actual damages under FISA and the Wiretap Act, it's arguable whether this immunity argument applied to any of the previous lawsuits. What is clear, though, is that the Bush DOJ, in any context, never articulated this bizarre view that all claims of illegal government surveillance are immunized in the absence of "willful disclosure" to the public of the intercepted communications. This is a brand new Obama DOJ invention to blanket themselves (and Bush officials) with extraordinary immunity even when they knowingly break our country's surveillance laws.
It's difficult to read the administration's brief in any other way than a reinforcement--even an inflation of--the unitary executive, or to attribute it to Bush holdovers. This is first of the cases in which the DOJ attorneys aren't carrying over arguments from the previous administration--they are initiating this case. And it appears that the promises of last summer and fall when FISAAA was being argued were pretty damned empty. As EFF points out:
"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."
Judge Walker, the judge also hearing Al-Haramain, has been hostile to these extraordinarily broad claims by the previous government, and will likely be so again. But it seems pretty clear that the Obama administration will appeal this one, if necessary, as far as it has to.
The comments following this story (at the site) are passionate and sometimes enlightening.
Myself...I only hope that the argument put forth that the DOJ is doing its legally-mandated job is the correct one. By that argument, the DOJ must defend the United States' government against any and all lawsuits brought against it to the utmost of its capabilities, and the DOJ (with or without, most likely without, the oversight of Obama himself) is going over the top in its arguments so that no one involved in this case, at any time, can be accused of not doing due diligence. That's a valid argument, especially if Obama's administration has no intent of putting into effect any policies depending on their legal defense. Evidence against this, though, is that Obama has decided to maintain some long-standing "black sites" at which torture is alleged to have occurred. As Turley said on "Countdown," Obama seems to be all about programs, not principles. I don't know if I agree with that 100%, but there's something to it.
I just know that we have to hold the Obama Administration just as culpable as we would the Bush Administration. Yes, the lawsuit against the United States now has Obama's government as defendants, and they must defend themselves vigorously. And yes, it is entirely possible that they are choosing a ridiculously over-the-top defense not only to ensure due diligence but also to throw the case. But if the current DOJ pursues this as a matter of policy, it is our obligation to protest it in every avenue available to us.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/7/15548/97017?detail=f
(live links at website)
More Immunity Claims on Wiretapping from Obama DOJ by mcjoan
Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 05:02:04 PM PDT
In three separate cases in as many months, the Obama Justice Department has used the same arguments that the Bush administration Justice Department used to attempt to stop judicial review of extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping. In the Mohamed v. Jeppesen extraordinary rendition case, the Obama administration reiterated the Bush administration argument that the case should be dismissed to preserve "states secrets." Likewise, in the Al-Haramain wiretapping case, Obama's DOJ used the arguments of the Bush administration to argue, again, that state secrets should prevent the Al-Haramain case--in which the only secret isn't a secret because it was inadvertently shared with plaintiff's attorneys--from moving forward.
Late Friday, the Obama DOJ actually went the Bush administration one argument further, in a third case. InJewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is "suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records." The Obama administration filed its first response [pdf] to the suit Friday, demanding dismissal of the entire suit.
Just a reminder, as pointed out by Glenn; one of the rationales provided by all of those Senators who supported the FISAAA that granted immunity to the telcos was the the avenue of suing the government was still open. Jello Jay wrote: "If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials."
Let's hope that Senator Rockefeller holds that belief when the government is led by his own party. Here'sGlenn's synopsis of the government argument:
[T]he Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.
In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.
There are several notable aspects to what happened here with this new court filing from Obama:
(1) Unlike in the prior cases where the Obama DOJ embraced the Bush theory of state secrets -- in which the Obama DOJ was simply maintaining already-asserted arguments in those lawsuits by the Bush DOJ -- the motion filed on Friday was the first response of any kind to this lawsuit by the Government. Indeed, EFF filed the lawsuit in October but purposely agreed with Bush lawyers to an extension of the time to respond until April, in the hope that by making this Obama's case, and giving his DOJ officials months to consider what to do when first responding, they would receive a different response than the one they would have gotten from the Bush DOJ.
That didn't happen. This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed -- almost three full months -- makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials. Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used -- not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance. Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of "state secrets" to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself.
(2) It is hard to overstate how extremist is the "sovereign immunity" argument which the Obama DOJ invented here in order to get rid of this lawsuit. I confirmed with both ACLU and EFF lawyers involved in numerous prior surveillance cases with the Bush administration that the Bush DOJ had never previously argued in any context that the Patriot Act bars all causes of action for any illegal surveillance in the absence of "willful disclosure." This is a brand new, extraordinarily broad claim of government immunity made for the first time ever by the Obama DOJ -- all in service of blocking EFF's lawsuit against Bush officials for illegal spying. As EFF's Kevin Bankston put it:
This is the first time [the DOJ] claimed sovereign immunity against Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act claims. In other words, the administration is arguing that the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violates federal surveillance statutes, whether FISA, the Wiretap Act or the SCA.
Since EFF's lawsuit is the first to sue for actual damages under FISA and the Wiretap Act, it's arguable whether this immunity argument applied to any of the previous lawsuits. What is clear, though, is that the Bush DOJ, in any context, never articulated this bizarre view that all claims of illegal government surveillance are immunized in the absence of "willful disclosure" to the public of the intercepted communications. This is a brand new Obama DOJ invention to blanket themselves (and Bush officials) with extraordinary immunity even when they knowingly break our country's surveillance laws.
It's difficult to read the administration's brief in any other way than a reinforcement--even an inflation of--the unitary executive, or to attribute it to Bush holdovers. This is first of the cases in which the DOJ attorneys aren't carrying over arguments from the previous administration--they are initiating this case. And it appears that the promises of last summer and fall when FISAAA was being argued were pretty damned empty. As EFF points out:
"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."
Judge Walker, the judge also hearing Al-Haramain, has been hostile to these extraordinarily broad claims by the previous government, and will likely be so again. But it seems pretty clear that the Obama administration will appeal this one, if necessary, as far as it has to.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight
Sorry to have been away from my blog so long! But I must post because I just cannot believe what has happened to the GOP. Not that I'm sorry, mind you, because I'm not. Couldn't happen to a nicer vast right-wing conspiracy. But how did the Armies of Mordor turn into the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight?
It's becoming a comedy. Every day, it seems, is an adventure into the GOP shooting itself in the foot. Here are a few recent stumbles: Bobby Jindal's goofy post-Obama speech response in which he tsk-tsk'd volcano monitoring (nicely underlined by Mt. Redoubt in Alaska, which said, "Bobby WHO?"). Bobby Jindal giving a fundraising speech during a prime-time Obama press conference. Eric Cantor abandoning the Obama presser for a Britney Spears concert. Sarah Palin in front of the turkey killing machine. David Vitter throwing fits over not getting priority treatment at an airport. Michael Steele criticizing Rush Limbaugh, then doing backflips to apologize. Michael Steele being pro-choice, then being reeled back in by his party masters. Michael Steele being pro-gay rights, then being reeled in by his party masters. Michael Steele stating that this was all strategy and part of his master plan. (OO!) Sarah Palin knocking the McCain campaign for not having anyone to pray with. The continuing goofy feigned outrage by various talking heads (repeated, of course, by the sheeple) over Obama using a teleprompter. (See below for a picture of Bush using one.) Being overall the Party of No (Ideas). And this is just a smattering of stuff over the last three or four months. There's more. Lots more.
But today, how lovely!--the GOP finally offered its Republican Road to Recovery budget response to Obama's budget. "Here it is," John Boehner intoned solemnly, holding up a 19-page pamphlet with a spiffy blue cover with an official-looking seal. This was it: the real thing. Only it was virtually empty. It contained no numbers. That's right. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, was on MSNBC to crow about it but was stopped cold by Norah O'Donnell. (I'm going to have to rethink my opinion of her as a bimbo.) She demanded to know what Pence's actual deficit-reducing figures were, and he clumsily evaded the issue. (Video is here: GOP Budget Plan Fizzles) According to HuffPo, there was actually some sort of response actually in the works (heavy on tax cuts for the wealthy, natch), but Pence wanted to get on the TeeVee and rushed this thing out. Boehner strong-armed Eric Cantor into going along with it, and everyone looked...well...stupid.
How did this happen? In 2004, you had a virtual army, a Politburo, and a Corleone Family all rolled up into one. Those guys marched in lockstep, painted anyone who disagreed with them as traitors to America, and enforced omerta on everyone in the party. This was the Party of BOO!, the bouncer who wouldn't let the Dems into the club, the full-tilt total media spin machine that issued dicta and talking points to an enslaved media and a cowed public. But since then, they've started to lose control of the audience the more strictly try to enforce the message. Now, there have been written tomes of analysis on how the Republicans drove the country into the sh*tter during the Bush years, and I'm not going to try to summarize any of them. But how did the GOP lose their grip? I'll give it to you in one word: KATRINA.
Yup. Hurricane Katrina was the tipping point. That was when the emperor's new clothes came off. At that point, the incompetence of the GOP stood revealed before an aghast nation, and that nation began asking questions. They began doubting in the mighty wall that was the GOP. But let's fast-forward so as to not compile some tedious timeline. What we have now is a GOP in denial, that cannot believe it doesn't have the same power and credibility pre-Katrina. They haven't grasped that beyond the devout, no one believes their bullshit. This is a crowd that honestly thinks that the reason they lost in 2006 and 2008 was that they didn't get their message out. Here's your clue: we all got your message. We rejected it. And we're rejecting it now.
But they still think that all they have to do is yell louder. That's why you have hysterical wingnuts out there crying "Socialism!" and "Communism!" and "Fascism!" and "Dictatorship!" And that's why you have frightened, frustrated loons out there bitterly complaining that Obama uses a teleprompter. Just like the tick that does nothing in its life but hang onto a blade of grass waiting for a mammal to happen by, that's all they've got now.
You know, there used to be a responsible, sensible GOP. They had admirable goals: reduce government waste, reduce bureaucracy, budget wisely, and leave people the hell alone. That GOP started disappearing in Nixon's southern strategy and had totally vanished by Ronnie's second term. What took office in 1994 (the "Republican Revolution") and in 2000 was so far from common-sense Republicanism that it wouldn't get the endorsement of Henry Luce. Against Bush II, Eisenhower would have been seen as a dangerous liberal, and the party would have drummed him out. I don't even know if the current GOP has an ideology other than "I got mine, screw you!"
They've become clueless and angry, and the American populace responds to that by staying away. There's a reason why Obama's popularity is going up despite the constant attacks. We're responding to a President who tells us what we have within us to succeed, not a cabal that tells us that everything not-us is threatening to kill us. Is it hope? Maybe. Or maybe it's just relief that the White House finally has someone competent and responsible in charge.
It's becoming a comedy. Every day, it seems, is an adventure into the GOP shooting itself in the foot. Here are a few recent stumbles: Bobby Jindal's goofy post-Obama speech response in which he tsk-tsk'd volcano monitoring (nicely underlined by Mt. Redoubt in Alaska, which said, "Bobby WHO?"). Bobby Jindal giving a fundraising speech during a prime-time Obama press conference. Eric Cantor abandoning the Obama presser for a Britney Spears concert. Sarah Palin in front of the turkey killing machine. David Vitter throwing fits over not getting priority treatment at an airport. Michael Steele criticizing Rush Limbaugh, then doing backflips to apologize. Michael Steele being pro-choice, then being reeled back in by his party masters. Michael Steele being pro-gay rights, then being reeled in by his party masters. Michael Steele stating that this was all strategy and part of his master plan. (OO!) Sarah Palin knocking the McCain campaign for not having anyone to pray with. The continuing goofy feigned outrage by various talking heads (repeated, of course, by the sheeple) over Obama using a teleprompter. (See below for a picture of Bush using one.) Being overall the Party of No (Ideas). And this is just a smattering of stuff over the last three or four months. There's more. Lots more.
But today, how lovely!--the GOP finally offered its Republican Road to Recovery budget response to Obama's budget. "Here it is," John Boehner intoned solemnly, holding up a 19-page pamphlet with a spiffy blue cover with an official-looking seal. This was it: the real thing. Only it was virtually empty. It contained no numbers. That's right. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, was on MSNBC to crow about it but was stopped cold by Norah O'Donnell. (I'm going to have to rethink my opinion of her as a bimbo.) She demanded to know what Pence's actual deficit-reducing figures were, and he clumsily evaded the issue. (Video is here: GOP Budget Plan Fizzles) According to HuffPo, there was actually some sort of response actually in the works (heavy on tax cuts for the wealthy, natch), but Pence wanted to get on the TeeVee and rushed this thing out. Boehner strong-armed Eric Cantor into going along with it, and everyone looked...well...stupid.
How did this happen? In 2004, you had a virtual army, a Politburo, and a Corleone Family all rolled up into one. Those guys marched in lockstep, painted anyone who disagreed with them as traitors to America, and enforced omerta on everyone in the party. This was the Party of BOO!, the bouncer who wouldn't let the Dems into the club, the full-tilt total media spin machine that issued dicta and talking points to an enslaved media and a cowed public. But since then, they've started to lose control of the audience the more strictly try to enforce the message. Now, there have been written tomes of analysis on how the Republicans drove the country into the sh*tter during the Bush years, and I'm not going to try to summarize any of them. But how did the GOP lose their grip? I'll give it to you in one word: KATRINA.
Yup. Hurricane Katrina was the tipping point. That was when the emperor's new clothes came off. At that point, the incompetence of the GOP stood revealed before an aghast nation, and that nation began asking questions. They began doubting in the mighty wall that was the GOP. But let's fast-forward so as to not compile some tedious timeline. What we have now is a GOP in denial, that cannot believe it doesn't have the same power and credibility pre-Katrina. They haven't grasped that beyond the devout, no one believes their bullshit. This is a crowd that honestly thinks that the reason they lost in 2006 and 2008 was that they didn't get their message out. Here's your clue: we all got your message. We rejected it. And we're rejecting it now.
But they still think that all they have to do is yell louder. That's why you have hysterical wingnuts out there crying "Socialism!" and "Communism!" and "Fascism!" and "Dictatorship!" And that's why you have frightened, frustrated loons out there bitterly complaining that Obama uses a teleprompter. Just like the tick that does nothing in its life but hang onto a blade of grass waiting for a mammal to happen by, that's all they've got now.
You know, there used to be a responsible, sensible GOP. They had admirable goals: reduce government waste, reduce bureaucracy, budget wisely, and leave people the hell alone. That GOP started disappearing in Nixon's southern strategy and had totally vanished by Ronnie's second term. What took office in 1994 (the "Republican Revolution") and in 2000 was so far from common-sense Republicanism that it wouldn't get the endorsement of Henry Luce. Against Bush II, Eisenhower would have been seen as a dangerous liberal, and the party would have drummed him out. I don't even know if the current GOP has an ideology other than "I got mine, screw you!"
They've become clueless and angry, and the American populace responds to that by staying away. There's a reason why Obama's popularity is going up despite the constant attacks. We're responding to a President who tells us what we have within us to succeed, not a cabal that tells us that everything not-us is threatening to kill us. Is it hope? Maybe. Or maybe it's just relief that the White House finally has someone competent and responsible in charge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)